Table 7.

Comparison of current meta-analysis to other published meta-analyses

Studies				Current Meta-Analysis
	Schinasi and Leon [25]a	IARC [22]	Chang and Delzell [26]a, b	with AHS 2005 [19]	with AHS 2018 [24]
	RR (95% CI)	RR (95% CI)	RR (95% CI)	RR (95% CI)	RR (95% CI)
Andreotti et al. [24]	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	1.12 (0.83-1.51)
De Roos (2005) [19]	1.1 (0.7, 1.9)	1.1 (0.7, 1.9)	1.1 (0.7, 1.9)	0.8 (0.5, 1.4)	N/A
De Roos (2003) [15]	2.1 (1.1,4.0)	2.1 (1.1,4.0)	1.6 (0.9, 2.8)	2.1 (1.1,4.0)	2.1 (1.1,4.0)
Eriksson et al. [16]	2.0 (1.1,3.7)	1.51 (0.77, 2.94)	1.51 (0.77, 2.94)	2.36 (1.04, 5.37)	2.36 (1.04, 5.37)
Hardell et al. [17]	3.0 (1.1, 8.5)	1.85 (0.55, 6.20)	1.85 (0.55, 6.20)	1.85 (0.55, 6.20)	1.85 (0.55, 6.20)
McDuffie et al. [42]	1.2 (0.8, 1.7)	1.20 (0.83, 1.74)	1.20 (0.83, 1.74)	2.12 (1.20, 3.73)	2.12 (1.20, 3.73)
Orsi et al. [18]	1.0 (0.5, 2.2)	1.0 (0.5, 2.2)	1.0 (0.5, 2.2)	1.0 (0.5, 2.2)	1.0 (0.5, 2.2)
meta-RR (95% CI)	1.45 (1.08, 1.95)c	1.30 (1.03, 1.64)	1.27 (1.01, 1.59)	1.45 (1.11, 1.91)	1.41 (1.13, 1.75)

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; meta-RR, meta-relative risk; RR, relative risk;

^aIn their published reports, meta-RRs and their 95% confidence intervals were rounded to one digit right of the decimal point.

^bFindings from Model 1, the primary analysis, are reported here.

^cRandom effects model.